Can the illogical be true

[YOLOisonlyprinciple]

Does the truth have to be logical?
Does existance and truth be bound to the constraints of logic?



Because there is no concrete evidence to prove that truth has to be logical.
And only logic can be proved. But if i say that truth doesnt have to be logical; there is no way that you can disprove me or what i believe, because only logic can be proved, but if i define truth to be not necessarily be bound by the tenets of logic; then im never wrong


If it is possible that there can be an illogical truth,
does it not mean that every single idea can be simultaneously true.
Meaning that atheism, Christianity, buddhism, Islam all are true and equally true, and simultaneously true.
So, yes your religion is correct, his religion is correct, my religion is correct. Yay

So, Stop fightin mother*****s....
Checkmate atheists, theists, agnostics, christians, muslims, buddhists, hindus..


GG get rekt


PS, Omnipotent God or not, each person's belief is equally likely and theoretically possible. Every one of us could be right, every one of us could be wrong. There is no reason for any person to have any sort of moral high ground compared to others. Everyone is equally knowledgeable, everyone is equally stupid.
So, stop stop killing people and bombing stuff for that reason.

 

[QuickTwist]

It can be... if you believe in the supernatural.

 

[Brontosaurie]

No. Logical capacity is the same thing as the capacity to discern truth and to admit the limits of perception.

Often logic is emulated, a program under some different routine such as prestige. This logic can be wrong. Real logic however is compulsory and felt and real logic is always right, which is very far from saying it knows everything.

Oops i answered the wrong question because of flawed logical processing. How ironic.

EDIT: Or did i? I'm not even sure. What i know is the tremendous density of pure truth and wisdom contained in the gem that is this very post.

Hm in fact i did answer correctly but in a burst of true logic incomprehensible to my later false logic schema employed by the insecurity routine. Fuck these routines. I want true logic only.

 

[YOLOisonlyprinciple]

It can be... if you believe in the supernatural.

Supernatural- that which is said to exist above and beyond nature.

Im not sure whether that is exactly what i mean.
Because, i dont have to *believe* in my statement, for it to be not wrong.

What i mean to say is you cant prove that there is cannot be an illogical truth because every single proof of reasoning depends on the assumption that the subject matter is logical. But what if i say, that logic is not a necessary universal quality??
There is no way to disprove me..

So, as long as it cant be disproved i do not need to believe in *supernatural*. Im saying that as long as my statement cant be disproved no "belief" in the world can be disproved. So, every belief in the world is possible and has equal moral ground as the other.


So, essentially any thought can be tested only if you *define* a set of logic which it will follow. So, depending on the logic of physics, the earth rotates around the Sun, but only because you have set a logical structure around it.
So, logic can only work for practical applications

But, for questions regarding existance, origin of soul etc, we cannot set an OVERARCHING structure of logic to begin from, because assumptions are key in existential questions.

How can you assume that all existential truths follow the logic of reasoning?
If you cannot prove that existential truths have to follow reasoning, then illogical statements can be true.
So, it is possible that we live in a world where both Ra and Jesus and Krishna exist, but at the same time there exist no Gods.

So, what im saying is every religion, every belief may be simultaneously true, or false, or true and false in combinations. And each of those beliefs are equally probable.




So, using any beliefs/religions/existential logics to justify your actions is just BS

 

[YOLOisonlyprinciple]

Real logic however is compulsory and felt and real logic is always right, which is very far from saying it knows everything.

What is your proof for saying that real logic is compulsory.

Real logic is very useful no doubt, or we would never be able to calculate the distance to the moon and land a person on the moon.

But real logic is like an assumption, or should i say, approximation..

Approximations are useful but approximations arent correct. You need approximations for daily life, but you cant say life itself is based on approximations


As 99.99999999999999999999999% of objects in our environmet follow logic, we assume it to be true because that greatly eases our work. But how can you extrapolate that to saying that 100% of objects and ideas have to be logical?

 

[QuickTwist]

Supernatural- that which is said to exist above and beyond nature.

Im not sure whether that is exactly what i mean.
Because, i dont have to *believe* in my statement, for it to be not wrong.

What i mean to say is you cant prove that there is cannot be an illogical truth because every single proof of reasoning depends on the assumption that the subject matter is logical. But what if i say, that logic is not a necessary universal quality??
There is no way to disprove me..

So, as long as it cant be disproved i do not need to believe in *supernatural*. Im saying that as long as my statement cant be disproved no "belief" in the world can be disproved. So, every belief in the world is possible and has equal moral ground as the other.


So, essentially any thought can be tested only if you *define* a set of logic which it will follow. So, depending on the logic of physics, the earth rotates around the Sun, but only because you have set a logical structure around it.
So, logic can only work for practical applications

But, for questions regarding existance, origin of soul etc, we cannot set an OVERARCHING structure of logic to begin from, because assumptions are key in existential questions.

How can you assume that all existential truths follow the logic of reasoning?
If you cannot prove that existential truths have to follow reasoning, then illogical statements can be true.
So, it is possible that we live in a world where both Ra and Jesus and Krishna exist, but at the same time there exist no Gods.

So, what im saying is every religion, every belief may be simultaneously true, or false, or true and false in combinations. And each of those beliefs are equally probable.




So, using any beliefs/religions/existential logics to justify your actions is just BS

Think about it like this: if there is a situation that cannot be explained, does that mean that it is truly illogical, or does it simply mean we haven't found the proof for it yet?

 

[YOLOisonlyprinciple]

Think about it like this: if there is a situation that cannot be explained, does that mean that it is truly illogical, or does it simply mean we haven't found the proof for it yet?

What im saying is what is you basis for believing that "every situation needs to have a proof/ explanation/ reason"
How do you make that assumption

 

[QuickTwist]

What im saying is what is you basis for believing that "every situation needs to have a proof/ explanation/ reason"
How do you make that assumption

I'm not saying there needs to be a proof, I'm saying there needs to be a reason why something is true or not.

 

[Haim]

You are talking about emotional thinking.
A thing I said in one post "Life is amazing gift,only a fool will throw it away"
This is my feeling,if it is logical true or not is irrelevant,it is irrational statement not logical.
Not that it is true,it is that true is irrelevant to it,it exist this way or the other way.
It really sound like a statement you can declare as false or true,but it isn't.

That what make it so hard to convince someone that his religion is false,the origin of it is emotional thinking,so any logic won't work on it.
When people do not separate their emotion from logic we get religion,where a will is regarded as true,and screw everything else.

 

[Tannhauser]

It depends on what you mean by "truth" and "logic". In terms of empirical truths, you can never disprove the statements of religions, because they are designed to be non-falsifiable. For example "there exists such and such deity and he hides whenever you try to look for him".

It is true, btw, that every non-falsifiable statement is just as likely to be empirically true as any other. That does not mean it is "correct", it just means it is one of infinitely many candidates for truth. The problem with religious people is that they think "non-falsifiable" means "true".

 

[Brontosaurie]

What is your proof for saying that real logic is compulsory.

Real logic is very useful no doubt, or we would never be able to calculate the distance to the moon and land a person on the moon.

But real logic is like an assumption, or should i say, approximation..

Approximations are useful but approximations arent correct. You need approximations for daily life, but you cant say life itself is based on approximations


As 99.99999999999999999999999% of objects in our environmet follow logic, we assume it to be true because that greatly eases our work. But how can you extrapolate that to saying that 100% of objects and ideas have to be logical?

Real logic admits the limits of perception.

Truth can be known for sure, just not all of it. Statements of real logic are precisely general and this is how they achieve truth.

Cultivation of real logic in society will give us certain truths.

Real logic doesn't try to tell that which it can't know. It attends to what can be known and proceeds to know it. It doesn't deal in probability but in conditionality.

But real logic is not like formal logic. It is intuitive and not all computations may be declared. It becomes a resonant will.

Any truth starts in the real logic of some mind and then gets perverted as it trickles down other minds less concerned with real logic. Instead perhaps being concerned with emotions. Some people feel strongly about logic while others base their logic on feeling. The latter kind must be eliminated.

I love sounding elitist.

Routine-subsumed logic isn't always useless. It's like tools. Real logic is not a tool but the essence of human mind and, if allowed to reverberate undisturbed by perversion, the source of joy as well as truth.

 

[YOLOisonlyprinciple]

Truth can be known for sure, just not all of it.

So, you accept that real logic will not be able to find some truths in the world.
As real logic, can only find some truths and not all of them, it cannot say which statement's of a person are necessarily false as it does not have access to all truths.

Meaning my original statement that there can exist atleast one illogical truth is still valid.
If that is so, it is possible that one illogical truth that every belief and every religion is true, and equally true because, each one is equally possible because illogical truths can be valid.



Ignore my tone, when i try to defend an idea i sometimes sound like BS, like a kid..

 

[Brontosaurie]

So, you accept that real logic will not be able to find some truths in the world.
As real logic, can only find some truths and not all of them, it cannot say which statement's of a person are necessarily false as it does not have access to all truths.

Meaning my original statement that there can exist atleast one illogical truth is still valid.
If that is so, it is possible that one illogical truth that every belief and every religion is true, and equally true because, each one is equally possible because illogical truths can be valid.



Ignore my tone, when i try to defend an idea i sometimes sound like BS, like a kid..

Your tone is fine, and i'm not the one to complain about that anyhow.

What i was trying to get at in my first post is that truth is identical to real logic. Truth is not illogical. It may be a lucky hit but then we are missing something basic about epistemology.

And this may be some BS i'm defending.

 

[Haim]

So, you accept that real logic will not be able to find some truths in the world.
As real logic, can only find some truths and not all of them, it cannot say which statement's of a person are necessarily false as it does not have access to all truths.

Meaning my original statement that there can exist at least one illogical truth is still valid.
If that is so, it is possible that one illogical truth that every belief and every religion is true, and equally true because, each one is equally possible because illogical truths can be valid.



Ignore my tone, when i try to defend an idea i sometimes sound like BS, like a kid..

Please read my earlier post,true is irrelevant to emotional based ideas such as religion.
"Pizza taste good"
Can you say it true?can you say it false?
It is not based on logic but emotion,true is irrelevant.

The chance of god to exist is so low that you might as well say god does not exist.
But people do not believe in god because it is reasonable he exists but because they want to,because of many psychological reasons.

Real logic doesn't try to tell that which it can't know. It attends to what can be known and proceeds to know it. It doesn't deal in probability but in conditionality.

Logic does deal with probability,most things in life are not "true" or "false".
I calculate the chance of something to be true or false,it is logic,there are reasons for one thing to have more chance to be true.
If I go to my house and the door already open,by logic I conclude that one of my family member is home,but that just a the highest chance,somebody might forgotten to lock the door,maybe my family was robbed,maybe someone broke in or for some reason a family member of mine gave a key to someone else to bring something from home.There is little condition in here,more like that logic filtered the number of possibilities.

 

[Tannhauser]

I think this is a discussion about the meanings of words. Wtf is "real logic" anyway?

Logic is like mathematics – it is a system which works in certain domains. In general, the empirical world and logic are separated. Once you apply logic on empirical phenomena, it becomes an empirical claim – some sort of conjecture to be empirically tested.

 

[Grayman]

Objective truth is logical. But what is true for you is not true for everyone. The fault is using using subjective truth as if it were objective.

I suppose it would be correct to say that subjective truth is not logical...it is more relational. Beliefs are likely to build upon each other through associations and by recognizing those associations we can reason out why we believe what we do. So there is some form of logic in this process but it isn't a requirement to belief. How logical a system of beliefs are depends on the person and how much they value logic.

So is your question whether or not logic should be believed to be important? Yes, if you value functional systems that are more capable of interacting with the physical world. Also, unreasoned beliefs can lead a person into constant internal conflict and a greater disconnect from objective reality.

 

[Bogart]

Does the truth have to be logical?
Does existance and truth be bound to the constraints of logic?



Because there is no concrete evidence to prove that truth has to be logical.
And only logic can be proved. But if i say that truth doesnt have to be logical; there is no way that you can disprove me or what i believe, because only logic can be proved, but if i define truth to be not necessarily be bound by the tenets of logic; then im never wrong


If it is possible that there can be an illogical truth,
does it not mean that every single idea can be simultaneously true.
Meaning that atheism, Christianity, buddhism, Islam all are true and equally true, and simultaneously true.
So, yes your religion is correct, his religion is correct, my religion is correct. Yay

So, Stop fightin mother*****s....
Checkmate atheists, theists, agnostics, christians, muslims, buddhists, hindus..


GG get rekt


PS, Omnipotent God or not, each person's belief is equally likely and theoretically possible. Every one of us could be right, every one of us could be wrong. There is no reason for any person to have any sort of moral high ground compared to others. Everyone is equally knowledgeable, everyone is equally stupid.
So, stop stop killing people and bombing stuff for that reason.

Not if it exists like I understand it to exist, but that could be my fault, however unlikely, but that thought process could be my fault as well.

If everything wasn't just as it is, it wouldn't be.

 

[Hadoblado]

I'm pretty sure you get a prize for being the billionth person to shift the burden of proof far enough that you can assume whatever you like, whenever you like.

Logic is ultimately based on empiricism (the logic that matters anyway). It's just a system used to describe phenomenon. We only 'know' logic is right by the fact it isn't disproven by what occurs. If I was talking to Barry in the kitchen, and then received a call from Barry in Alaska, the logical rule that one thing cannot inhabit two remote places at once without splitting is called into question. Maybe the rule is false? Maybe it's Barry's dickhead friend Andrew pretending to be Barry? I'm forced to question whether the rule is wrong or one of the two premises (Barry is in the kitchen/Barry is in Alaska) is wrong. Maybe my kitchen is in Alaska? That's not breaking logic, it's just testing it. Even if one thing could inhabit two places at once without splitting, logic still 'works', we just need to update the system to include this rule. It's like science that way, it can evolve, though by this point we've gathered so much data that it's unlikely we're too wrong without going heavy on the philosophy or sci-fi.

You can try and be clever and say logic isn't provable and therefore it's not necessarily true by it's own standards, but it's still there breathing down your neck, whispering you 'truths' you accept without question. Every goal directed action you consciously take assumes logic (if I want pizza, and pizza I purchase becomes mine, I should purchase pizza so that I have pizza so that my want for pizza is satisfied). Without logic you might start eating your stereo instead, because it doesn't follow from pizza, that pizza. In fact, biting anything is generous, as eating doesn't necessitate biting. What is 'eating' anyway? Oh it's putting things in your face until you no longer want to? Well... yes, but since logic doesn't work anymore that could mean anything. Take a knife and stab yourself in the toe, since eating =/= eating.

This type of logic (yes it's an attempt at logic you're doing) is cherry picking. You want to use it to dismiss all the things about reality you don't like (bombs, beliefs, fighting), but you're unwilling to apply it when it inconveniences you to do so. Language, meaning, and thought are all dead in the water without logic, they just don't work. So you can either get comfortable knowing that the logic you're applying isn't absolute, and that a 99.999% certainty is better than 0%, or you use logic to build up a position that doesn't acknowledge the value of logic, inevitably spitting down on us mere logic peasants from behind a parapet of stonework you can no longer understand.

 

[Bogart]

Its like a fountain. The water is drawn up, pushed out the top and the water falls back down into the sump.

What's the failure of the of the mechanism?

 

[QuickTwist]

You can try and be clever and say logic isn't provable and therefore it's not necessarily true by it's own standards, but it's still there breathing down your neck, whispering you 'truths' you accept without question. Every goal directed action you consciously take assumes logic (if I want pizza, and pizza I purchase becomes mine, I should purchase pizza so that I have pizza so that my want for pizza is satisfied). Without logic you might start eating your stereo instead, because it doesn't follow from pizza, that pizza. In fact, biting anything is generous, as eating doesn't necessitate biting. What is 'eating' anyway? Oh it's putting things in your face until you no longer want to? Well... yes, but since logic doesn't work anymore that could mean anything. Take a knife and stab yourself in the toe, since eating =/= eating.

I think I'm not alone in saying we need many more posts like this one, you know, just so we have our bases covered.

/sarcasm.

Edit: No, that's not a dig at Hado, its me being disgusted that he should even have to make that post.